Featured Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

Explain Genesis 5:3 in light of Adam's sin.

 

So "likeness" now means "the same"??

So, when the scripture says Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh it is really saying Jesus was made of sinful flesh?

LOL, you kill me, you play with words, they mean whatever is convenient for you at the moment. In one verse "likeness" means the same, in another, it means the exact opposite.

You are reading into this verse what you want it to say. It does not say Seth was born with a sin nature. And what about Cain and Abel? Obviously they were not born in the LIKENESS of Adam, or else the scriptures would have told us, no????

 

And as for your belief that man is no longer made in God's image, this is refuted in the New Testament!

Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

Almost 4000 years after the garden, and the scripture says men ARE (present tense) made after the similitude or likeness of God.

 

Not the same word, not the same language, not even the same testament. In Romans 8:3, the word is Greek, homoioma, meaning "image," not "similitude" as is de'muth, and not "to be like," as with its root damah, both Hebrew words -- a given, since they are in the Old Testament. Also, with Seth, the word refers to him as a whole person. "Flesh" refers only to Christ's flesh, His body. Doesn't wash, Win, nice try, though.

Uh ... don't look now, but we've quoted Genesis 5:3 which unequivocally states that they were, indeed, born in his image.

 

You guys kill me, you wrest scripture at will to make it say whatever you want. Likeness means the same here, it means not the same here...

What a joke.

 

We properly exegete it, using proper lexical interpretation, translation, and nuance. And this ...

... is simply bizarre, as though you don't realize not only that the words translated to the same English word come from different languages, but also that "likeness" itself has a very lengthy placement in English dictionaries, with multiple definitions listed, ranging from simple image to representing a total and complete duplication. Which definition applies depends on context, just as with the Greek and the Hebrew.

I like and respect you, Win, and once bowed out of a similar discussion to avoid harming the spiritual connection we have as brothers. But this disparaging attitude you display here does more to reveal your own unwillingness to consider alternatives to what you believe, rather than making us appear foolish. So again, I'll bow out, and pray for you God's favor and blessing.

 

1) Now, it seems, those that deny the consequences of Adam's sin affect all mankind, want to make deny both the separation from God, i.e. in Adam rather than in Christ, and the spiritual corruption of our human spirit.

2) What is the nature of the corruption? Do we naturally put ourselves first or God and others first? Do we use deception to achieve our goals, or do we stick to the truth even when to do so thwarts our goals? Do Satan, the world, and our flesh offer what comes "naturally" or do we feel no attraction toward ungodliness?

3) Does being predisposed to sinful behavior make us unable to recognize ungodliness? Thus we are able to set our minds on that which is godly or choose to sin. Yes, some have a seared conscience, but they did not start out that way. God has provided in us the capability to seek God and trust in Christ, but it is not easy as we must turn away from what comes "naturally" to us. God is not the author of sin, He did not predestine our choices to do what Satan, the world, and our fleshly desires naturally attract us to do.

 

But scripture does not support we are born separated from God, it supports the exact opposite, which I have shown you many times.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Just as Jesus described a shepherd who originally had 100 sheep until one sheep "went astray" and became lost, Peter here also describes us all as sheep that have gone astray.

Words have meaning, you must originally be in the flock to "go astray". You cannot run away from home unless you first have a home.

Peter also says we are now "returned" to Jesus the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Again, words have meaning, you cannot "return" someplace you have never been. If we are born separated from God as you claim, then Peter could not say we are now "returned" to Jesus.

But you will ignore this obvious scripture that easily refutes your view.

 

1 Coronthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

 

Yes, in fact, these fellows are actually fulfilling this very scripture, they are speaking evil of men who are made in the similitude or likeness of God.

Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

They just don't get it.

 

I do not speak ancient Hebrew or Greek, so these types of arguments are meaningless to me. You might be correct, or you could be wrong. Because I do not know these languages or their grammar, I cannot tell.

But I happen to believe God has preserved our scripture for us. And I trust the scripture I have in English. The translators of the KJB which I use used the same English word "likeness" in the OT and NT. I happen to believe they considered these words to be the same, or to translate the same. I believe they tried (and succeeded) in choosing the most appropriate word that would give us the most accurate and reliable translation. You may not believe this, but this is what I believe.

So, if they used "likeness" in Genesis, and "likeness" in Romans, then they believed the Hebrew in Genesis and the Greek in Romans were expressing the same word and idea.

But here you have folks interpreting "likeness" in Genesis to say Seth was born with the same sinful nature as Adam (which it does not say at all), but in Romans, when it says Jesus was made in the "likeness" of sinful flesh, it means the exact opposite. That is about as inconsistent as you can get.

Now, before you or someone else falsely accuses me, I don't believe Jesus had sinful flesh. He was flesh, just like us, but he never sinned. We were born flesh, which is not sinful in itself, but the moment we sinned we became "sinful". So, sinful flesh is simply describing people who have sinned.

 

Thanks Webdog. Notice that this verse is also present tense, it says man IS the image and glory of God.

 

In chapter 11 of 1Corinthians Paul elaborates different reasons why a woman ought to cover her head in a service.
In context the verse you quoted (in Young's translation) is:

1 Corinthians 11:7 for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,
8 for a man is not of a woman, but a woman is of a man,
9 for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;

It is speaking about creation.
Man was created in the image and glory of God.
The woman is the glory of a man. (The head-covering symbolizes this.)
In creation the man is not of a woman, but rather the woman was created from the man.
It is quite evident from verse 9, that the woman was created for the man, as a help-meet for him. The entire context here goes right back to creation in these verses.

 

This exchange happened earlier in this thread, and has weighed on my mind since:

The rebuttal came:

But in post #10, this was written:

I'm not sure where the idea came from that I misrepresented your view. After all, I used the same verbiage as you did - with the exception that I said "again" instead of "anew", and I used "flesh" instead of "physical"

I don't like to misrepresent anyone's view, nor do I like mine misrepresented. It adds nothing to any discussion.

I don't like emotional fights and accusations flying around. So please take the time to clarify exactly how I misrepresented your view.


You said we must be born anew spiritually, not physically

I replied that you said born again is spirit, not flesh


If it is a misrepresentation, then you have my apology and request for clarification.


Does "born anew" mean something other than "born again" ??

Does "physical" mean something other than "flesh" ??


If so, explain.
If not, then where is the misrepresentation?

 

And I have refuted these mistaken views nearly as often.

1) The word translated returned refers to a change in direction and not to point of origin.

2) Yes, when we volitionally sin, we go astray, turn aside, stumble, etc. Again, this picture of our leaving the path of righteousness when we choose to sin, does not say we were not condemned already, as both Genesis and John teach.

I am still waiting for someone who denies that the consequences of Adam's sin were applied to all mankind, to explain if we were conceived in Christ, how did we escape His hand?

a) God subjected mankind to futility. This refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

b) All mankind is condemned, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

c) We are by nature, not nurture, children of wrath, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

d) The many were made sinners, this refers again to the consequences of Adam's sin.

e) We are conceived in iniquity, and this too refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

The only rebuttal offered for these scriptures is because of context, or figurative language, or word substitution, or structural analysis, they do not mean what they say.